Recently my brother-in-law sent me an article that set out to debunk the idea of the “Barbie Ideal.” It says that although “feminists” have long blamed Barbie for the self-image problems of women and girls, there is actually no study that has shown that to be true. On the other hand, states the article, there is one study that shows no link.
The study from University of Bath showed that girls found Barbie to be “childish, an inanimate object instead of a treasured toy.” And a toy that many girls actually maimed or destroyed.
Now, I certainly hope that Barbie isn’t having a negative impact on the millions of children who play with it but this article said some things that were, well, just plain silly.
For example: “Critics cite statistics such as that if Barbie were real, she couldn’t walk upright, or bear children.” It’s true that Barbie doesn’t have realistic proportions, but adults have studied this and analyzed it. Who is letting the little girls in on the secret? And why build a doll for kids that is so grossly — or grotesquely — disporportionate? Toy manufacturers spend a lot of time making baby dolls more and more lifelike, yet Barbie has boobs so big she wouldn’t be able to walk upright if she was real. It’s just bizarre. I mean, really. Would you give your daughter a Pamela Anderson doll to play with. Or an Anna Nicole Smith doll? Then why Barbie?
Another even more ridiculous quote:
“While Barbie has long been badgered about her ‘unhealthy’ shape, no one complains that Mr. Potato Head’s tubby physique is even less healthy.” Um… Mr. Potato Head is a POTATO. That’s what potatoes look like. Barbie is supposed to be a person. And are potatoes really that unhealthy? Check out this nutrition information from the Idaho Potato Growers Commission.
Okay, I don’t really think that Barbie is responsible for all the eating disorders in our society. But on the other hand, I don’t think that one study proves that she doesn’t have an impact.
catbird :: Jan.12.2006 ::
socio-pop ::
Comments Off